Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
    Hi Jeff

    I will have to respectfullly disagree with you there Jeff, as i believe Longs testimony conflicts with Cadoschs. They cant both be ''right'' .Regardless of whether or not 1888 clocks being minutes out or whether witnesses were mistaken with their times, i think thats irrelevant . They both gave their testimony at the inquest believing it to be true ,so with that in mind we have a conflict by definition imo .
    Really? So by saying “whether or not 1888 clocks etc….” you appear to be accepting the possibility of clocks being poorly synchronised. Therefore on the one hand you are saying “clocks could be wrong which would make Long and Cadosch tie up perfectly,” but on the other you are saying “the two witnesses can’t be reconciled.” Which is it?

    For Long and Cadosch to match up all that needs to have occurred is for clocks to have been out by 5, 6 or 7 minutes. So the unavoidable question is this……do you believe that clocks in a Victorian slum were so accurate and so well synchronised that the two witnesses simply can’t be reconciled?

    (Bearing in mind my little experiment a month or two ago where several clocks and phones were checked at the same time and there was an 8 minute time difference….in 2023)
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
      Quote, Sherlock from the Stride thread:

      The most laughable thing in the entire case bar none is the suggestion that John Richardson sat with a steaming, mutilated corpse a foot from his left boot and didn’t see it behind a door that you could ride a motorbike under.
      Wow, that must have created a draft in the house. I can't ride my Bonneville under our back door.

      Apart from perhaps the suggestion that he wasn’t there and just for a laugh decided to place himself at the scene of a knife murder knife in hand.

      Occam's razor: Richardson briefly looked from the top of the steps, as he told Chandler in the first place.​
      I note the use of ‘Sherlock’ instead of ‘Herlock’ but moving on.

      Why do you assume that Chandler was correct when he was relying on memory of a conversation which took place in a passageway at the scene of a sensational murder?

      The simple fact is that, at the Inquest, Richardson said that he couldn’t possibly have missed a steaming, splayed and mutilated corpse that was a foot from his left boot. In any court of law that would have been a slam dunk.



      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

      Comment


      • My issue is a very simple one. I’ve got absolutely no problem with someone saying that it’s not impossible that Chapman could have been killed earlier. That’s not my issue. My issue is when people try to portray the situation as some kind of 50-50 possibility when it clearly isn’t. Even if we just consider the odds, what would be the chances, in any investigation, if someone was suggesting that Mr X was at a certain location but 3 totally unconnected witnesses, all average people with no connection to the case in question and with no axe to grind, all place Mr X elsewhere? What would the chances of all three being wrong be? This is the situation in the Chapman murder. Three totally unconnected witnesses, none of whom have any axe to grind, all point very strongly to a later ToD.

        And what is the evidence against this? Dr. Phillips, a perfectly competent Doctor, but a Victorian Doctor nonetheless. And all of the experts in the subject (not me, not Jeff, not Steve but proper authorities) all tell us without exception that ToD estimation at that time was unsafe because of the level of knowledge at the time and they reliable methods used. Why is there such an I.logical resistance to the world’s authorities? Would this occur in any other field? I doubt it.

        And so to try a bolster Phillips, for reasons that are beyond me (unless some have theories requiring an earlier ToD of course) we go to extraordinary lengths. We deny that clocks can be poorly synchronised. We deny that a man was competent to look into a yard and to know that a mutilated corpse couldn’t have been concealed. We deny that a man couldn’t hear something in the next yard.

        All of this effort. All of these contortions.

        Why?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Really? So by saying “whether or not 1888 clocks etc….” you appear to be accepting the possibility of clocks being poorly synchronised. Therefore on the one hand you are saying “clocks could be wrong which would make Long and Cadosch tie up perfectly,” but on the other you are saying “the two witnesses can’t be reconciled.” Which is it?

          For Long and Cadosch to match up all that needs to have occurred is for clocks to have been out by 5, 6 or 7 minutes. So the unavoidable question is this……do you believe that clocks in a Victorian slum were so accurate and so well synchronised that the two witnesses simply can’t be reconciled?

          (Bearing in mind my little experiment a month or two ago where several clocks and phones were checked at the same time and there was an 8 minute time difference….in 2023)
          Mrs. Elizabeth Long said: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel, and my husband, James Long, is a cart minder. On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five ''just before I got to the street''

          Well going by this Mrs long would have entered the street after she heard chime at 5.30 am [adding further time ] .I dont know of a clock that chimes 6,7,8 mins befor its suppose to . But lets say Mrs Long got it wrong and was mistaken and heard the 5.I5am thats the way some justify , now reconcile that with when cadosch say he heard the ''NO'' being that some say was the start of the murder . Theres can be no dout theres a conflict there.


          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            I note the use of ‘Sherlock’ instead of ‘Herlock’ but moving on.

            Why do you assume that Chandler was correct when he was relying on memory of a conversation which took place in a passageway at the scene of a sensational murder?

            The simple fact is that, at the Inquest, Richardson said that he couldn’t possibly have missed a steaming, splayed and mutilated corpse that was a foot from his left boot. In any court of law that would have been a slam dunk.
            I get the impression that you feel that error was deliberate, but hope that is not the case.

            Chandler was a trained professional.

            Some people are convinced that their opinions are 100% correct. The police held a different opinion.
            They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
            Out of a misty dream
            Our path emerges for a while, then closes
            Within a dream.
            Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

            ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              Mrs. Elizabeth Long said: I live in Church-row, Whitechapel, and my husband, James Long, is a cart minder. On Saturday, Sept. 8, about half past five o'clock in the morning, I was passing down Hanbury-street, from home, on my way to Spitalfields Market. I knew the time, because I heard the brewer's clock strike half-past five ''just before I got to the street''

              Well going by this Mrs long would have entered the street after she heard chime at 5.30 am [adding further time ] .I dont know of a clock that chimes 6,7,8 mins befor its suppose to . But lets say Mrs Long got it wrong and was mistaken and heard the 5.I5am thats the way some justify , now reconcile that with when cadosch say he heard the ''NO'' being that some say was the start of the murder . Theres can be no dout theres a conflict there.


              Then you haven’t read the evidence that has been posted about the accuracy of clocks Fishy. Jeff has posted stuff on the subject and George posted this on the ‘If Schwartz Lied’ thread:

              “Chris McKay, who is considered an authority on clocks of that era said: "Overall I think that if you found a clock in the East End that was telling time to within 10 mins of GMT you were doing well."

              Just because something seems unlikely in 2023 it’s not necessarily that case in 1888. So the above quote comes from a genuine authority on clocks. And Long’s and Cadosch’s times didn’t even need to be a full ten minutes out.

              So Long’s timing is clearly not an issue if we listen to an authority and apply common sense. Yes, she could still have been mistaken but we have to ask ourselves - what are the chances of a woman with zero connection to those involved, seeing a woman that looked exactly like Chapman, talking to a man, next to the spot where she was found dead 30 minutes later within 5 minutes or so of Cadosch hearing someone in that very yard….and her being wrong? How unlikely is that? Not impossible but unlikely. Add a man hearing noises from number 29. Add a man who saw all over the yard and saw no corpse with entrails around it and how can it be 50-50?





              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Really? So by saying “whether or not 1888 clocks etc….” you appear to be accepting the possibility of clocks being poorly synchronised. Therefore on the one hand you are saying “clocks could be wrong which would make Long and Cadosch tie up perfectly,” but on the other you are saying “the two witnesses can’t be reconciled.” Which is it?

                For Long and Cadosch to match up all that needs to have occurred is for clocks to have been out by 5, 6 or 7 minutes. So the unavoidable question is this……do you believe that clocks in a Victorian slum were so accurate and so well synchronised that the two witnesses simply can’t be reconciled?

                (Bearing in mind my little experiment a month or two ago where several clocks and phones were checked at the same time and there was an 8 minute time difference….in 2023)
                Or people could have a look at my 2022 East End Conference talk on the subject of timing. Hosted on Casebook at




                Steve


                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  I get the impression that you feel that error was deliberate, but hope that is not the case.

                  Fair enough George. It’s been done by others so I’m perhaps over-wary.

                  Chandler was a trained professional.

                  So were the police involved in every single miscarriage of justice ever George. He was also a human being in difficult circumstances. It wasn’t a sit down interview, it was done in the corridor with people coming in and out, perhaps with Constable’s interrupting him to ask questions or to tell him things. We can always add ‘perhapses,’ like ‘perhaps Richardson said that he sat on the step but Chandler simply misheard it as stood?’ Or ‘perhaps Richardson was a bit wary of mentioning his knife so he left it out until pressed later?’ Many people just don’t trust the police.

                  Or, ‘perhaps Richardson had just said something like “I went to the back door to check the cellar and there was no body in the yard.” And Chandler just said “are you certain that you couldn’t have missed it?” To which Richardson replied “I’m absolutely certain.” Then Chandler didn’t pursue the matter under the circumstances. His superiors might have asked why he didn’t question him more closely and so Chandler tried to cover his **** by saying that Richardson never mentioned sitting on the step?

                  We can’t know for certain but Richardson was doing nothing suspicious. He wasn’t benefitting.



                  Some people are convinced that their opinions are 100% correct. The police held a different opinion.
                  But in this case we have 3 people who all have to be mistaken or liars and I don’t think that’s at all likely. Richardson wasn’t being treated as a suspect and he’d already placed himself at the scene. If he wanted to prove that he couldn’t have missed a corpse it would have been no problem for him to have said that he’d stepped into the yard, or that he’d stood on the step and pushed the door back to the fence, or that he’d visited the outside loo. He would also have had no issue saying “I suppose that I might have missed a body.” So why was he 100% certain that he couldn’t have missed it and why, to prove this, would he have invented the stupidest lie possible…putting a knife in his own hand? None of the points against Richardson hold water.

                  For me Richardson alone proves a later ToD. Cadosch confirms it. Long is a bonus putting it beyond any reasonable doubt.

                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                  “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                    Or people could have a look at my 2022 East End Conference talk on the subject of timing. Hosted on Casebook at




                    Steve

                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      In Richardson's case there were doubts presented by both the members of the jury and the Coroner, but despite this the Coroner, who was a solicitor with no medical qualifications, decided to discard the medical advice of Phillips.

                      Best regards, George
                      Imagine for a moment that Cadosch and Long never existed, would you or anyone else be doubting Richardson as much? Phillips lands at 6.30 and comes to what is essentially a guess (based on knowledge and experience, absolutely) that the murder took place two hours earlier. Richardson says the yard was free of Chapman at 4.50-55. You could then argue that she was killed at 5.00. For a doctor using methods that are now outdated, if her death was 1.5 hours before his arrival, then everyone would be waxing lyrical about how his 2-hour guess was damned impressive.

                      Comment


                      • Dr Phillips leaves us 3 very important pieces of information.

                        One of which is the partially digested food in the stomach.

                        Pathologists believe those potatoes would not have taken the best part of 4 hours to fully digest in the stomach.

                        It follows: why would Liz eat again when she'd just eaten at 1.45am? from where would Annie get that food?

                        Why did nobody see Annie for the best part of 4 hours? Because the streets were empty? Then who in their right mind is trying to sell food with no custom at 3 or 4 in the morning when they needed sleep?

                        Dr Phillips: he knew.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post


                          why would Liz eat again when she'd just eaten at 1.45am?

                          who in their right mind is trying to sell food with no custom at 3 or 4 in the morning when they needed sleep?

                          Dr Phillips: he knew.
                          Autopsy report: "there were signs of great deprivation". If you're struggling to eat enough each day, would you not stuff down whatever you could? Who would sell food? Who said she bought it?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                            But lets say Mrs Long got it wrong and was mistaken and heard the 5.I5am thats the way some justify , now reconcile that with when cadosch say he heard the ''NO'' being that some say was the start of the murder . Theres can be no dout theres a conflict there.[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
                            How about this?

                            Long hears the clock at 5:15
                            She sees the man and woman at 5:16.
                            The man and woman enter the yard at 5:18.
                            Cadosch enters his yard at 5:20.
                            Cadosch hears "no" as he's leaving his yard.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
                              Dr Phillips leaves us 3 very important pieces of information.

                              One of which is the partially digested food in the stomach.

                              Pathologists believe those potatoes would not have taken the best part of 4 hours to fully digest in the stomach.

                              It follows: why would Liz eat again when she'd just eaten at 1.45am? from where would Annie get that food?

                              Why did nobody see Annie for the best part of 4 hours? Because the streets were empty? Then who in their right mind is trying to sell food with no custom at 3 or 4 in the morning when they needed sleep?

                              Dr Phillips: he knew.
                              The Doctor didn’t say that they were potatoes in her stomach. Why did she have to have bought food? How do you know that she didn’t have some item of food in her pocket? How do you know that she didn’t have two potatoes on her and cooked one in the lodging house and one later on? Or that she cooked both but only ate one. Or that a friend didn’t give her some food? You’re talking about these women as if food was easy to come by for them. As if they could just nip into a Starbucks whenever they felt peckish. They ate whenever they could. Whenever the opportunity arose. If some friend of hers offered to share a bit of food with her why would she have turned it down when she wouldn’t have known when she would get the next opportunity. She would hardly have said “no thanks, I’ve already had a potato in the last 15 hours I could manage another morsel.” Prostitutes were known to, on occasions, sell themselves for a crust of bread.

                              So the ‘sell’ is a red herring. It’s also the case that some people with illnesses have slower metabolisms.
                              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-04-2023, 08:50 PM.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                But in this case we have 3 people who all have to be mistaken or liars and I don’t think that’s at all likely. Richardson wasn’t being treated as a suspect and he’d already placed himself at the scene. If he wanted to prove that he couldn’t have missed a corpse it would have been no problem for him to have said that he’d stepped into the yard, or that he’d stood on the step and pushed the door back to the fence, or that he’d visited the outside loo. He would also have had no issue saying “I suppose that I might have missed a body.” So why was he 100% certain that he couldn’t have missed it and why, to prove this, would he have invented the stupidest lie possible…putting a knife in his own hand? None of the points against Richardson hold water.

                                For me Richardson alone proves a later ToD. Cadosch confirms it. Long is a bonus putting it beyond any reasonable doubt.
                                Hi Herlock,

                                I appreciate that you are convinced of your opinions, but I am not persuaded. We've been over this many times, but if I may be permitted a brief summary of my viewpoint.

                                Long waited 3 days to decide that she had seen Annie, whom she had never seen before, in a market day street. Not lying, just caught up in the excitement.

                                Cadosche testified that he didn't see anything, and didn't hear anything unusual. "Things that go bump in the night" are more frequent around day break.

                                Richardson related to Chandler what was testified by him and his mother to be his normal routine. It was 2 days after the Chandler interview that he started mentioning the boot repair to the press. He had already attempted the repair in better conditions and failed. Was he silly enough to think that he could succeed sitting on a step in the dark with a knife that he must have known wasn't up to the task? Even if we accept the boot repair story, it was afterwards reported in the press that the police considered that his view would have been blocked by the door.

                                Chapman was well known in this district, but was not seen four 4 hours prior to the discovery of her body. I am not in anyway convinced that Jack would have risked an outdoor daylight murder in an amphitheatre of potential witnesses. Nor do I believe that he would have persisted when a witness appeared only feet away from him, in the form of Cadosche.

                                As for the ToD, I am unconvinced that, comparing the medical state of Chapman and Eddowes, that Annie had been dead only one hour.

                                As I've discussed with Jeff, I only lean towards these opinions. I don't believe it is possible to be 100% certain of anything in this case. As always, JMO and subject to change at any time. Sorry that my summary didn't turn out to be all that brief.

                                Cheers, George
                                They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                                Out of a misty dream
                                Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                                Within a dream.
                                Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                                ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X